Ending World Hunger Is Immoral

There are some meaningless things people just go along with. Let me point out something that should be rather obvious, but for some reason isn't.

Ending world hunger is a bad idea.

It seems even atheists have a hard time grasping this. Bimbos in beauty pageants are trained to parrot it back whenever they're asked what they wish for. Ask any child, or naive adult, and you'll get the same wish of ending world hunger, world peace or some other inane nonsense like that.

Ever stop to think about why humans aren't supposed to interfere with nature? Why do you think it is that cameramen filming little turtles crawling into the ocean never stop help them? Why do they just stand there and watch as some of the poor little fucks get picked off my birds? Because that's how nature preserves its balance. If all of them made it to the ocean, the risk of overpopulation would be too high.

Knowing this then, why do we interfere with other humans? Why is it ethical to not interfere with nature when it's animals, but it's suddenly the complete opposite when it's humans? Why do people have such a hard time accepting that humans are no different than other animals, and that most of the world's problems are indisputably caused by human overpopulation?

7 billion people is too much as it is, and the only reason that some of these billions of people are starving to death, dying in wars, famine etc is that there's too much of them to begin with. And the solution is to stop them from dying so humanity can spread even more? How disgusting.

Every time you watch a documentary on obesity, you can be sure to hear something along the lines of "with the food thrown away in America on a daily basis you could end world hunger." Yes, and then those people would multiply, and then we're fucked again. It's a matter of thinking long term. Aiding in more people surviving is only going to cause more suffering in the long run. Earth is finite. Resources are finite. And thanks to religion we're wasting precious time and money on arguing about matters that are apparently more important, such as who should be allowed to marry whom, and so are yet nowhere near to colonizing space. It's simply irresponsible to suggest every human should be saved.

Famine, disease and even war are nature's way of keeping our numbers at bay, and we arrogantly struggle against that. We're so fucking precious aren't we? No. Humans are no different than any other resource. The more on there is on the market, the less it's worth.

People are trying to get pandas to fuck in the zoo so their species doesn't die out. No one does the same for ants, cockroaches or grasshoppers. They're "pests." In fact we try to kill those. Well guess what, humans aren't the equivalent to pandas. We're the fucking locusts of this world, and it's already haunting us. We have to accept that nature, earth, cannot support this many people breeding at an accelerating rate. Ultimately at this point, with 7 billion people, any single person is too much, and pumping out more of our larva is just detrimental to the well-being of the rest.

Same goes for people who have children. Don't think I forgot about you. It doesn't matter how much you recycle, how much of a vegan you are, or how well you raise your little supposed prodigies. In the end, you're just part of the problem. So next time you feel selfish enough to want kids, be a little moral and do the world a favor by just adopting a kid.

Belle better a few people starve than multiples of it in the future. That's where we're heading now. Places like famine stricken parts of Africa are really a glimpse into the future of all around the Earth. If I were starving, I'd never wish that upon anybody else, especially not the future generations. But that's where we're heading right now. The best and most effective way to stop starvation of humans in general would not be to send them some little rations every now end then so they can prolong their miserable lives, but instead try to find a balance like Simon said. We need to find the equilibrium between quality and quantity, so everybody who's around can live a good life. That's not going to happen as long as clergy scum pressure people into breeding recklessly without thought of resources and conditions. It's not just people starving elsewhere, think of your own children. Their conditions of life are going to deteriorate with each passing generation.

It is not so much that starvation itself is not within the realm of morality, rather it is more immoral to condemn the rest of the world to the fate of curing it as the population exists today. I think that is what Korsan is trying to say..correct me if I'm wrong dude. Whether you have starved or are starving does not change the fact that we are too many on this planet and there are only so many beans to go around.

Negative population growth occurs with an average of 1 to 2 children per family. The idea is unpopular with us older people who depend on sustained growth for our earned entitlements. We are seeing some of that as the baby boomers retire. It is also unpopular with religions that are always looking to indoctrinate the young to gain new members. It is also unpopular with governments and businesses looking for more and more revenue. So the powers that be encourage this delusion that "lifeboat earth" has unlimited capacity. It'll be a gruesome thing when the boat starts sinking.